• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Read Ebook {PDF EPUB} Believe in America Mitt Romney's Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth by Mitt Romney Romney’s Economic Plan Would Kill 360,000 Jobs In 2013 Alone. The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced today that 163,000 jobs were created in the U.S. last month, but that the unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 8.3 percent. Mitt Romney, of course, seized on the latter data point, calling it “a hammer blow to middle-class families.” “Yesterday, I launched my Plan for a Stronger Middle-Class that will bring more jobs and more take home pay. My plan will turn things around and bring the economy roaring back, with twelve millions new jobs created by the end of my first term,” Romney said. Romney claim that his plan will create 12 million jobs is one that his economic advisers have been echoing. However, a Center for American Progress Action Fund analysis found that Romney plan would actually kill 360,000 jobs next year alone: In a white paper outlining his economic platform, Believe in America: Mitt Romney’s Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth, he offers a 59-point plan to create jobs and lower unemployment. Unfortunately, no amount of economic theory, real world evidence, basic arithmetic, or just plain logic could substantiate the belief that his 59-point jobs plan could create even 59 net new jobs in the U.S. economy… In total, by a conservative tally, Gov. Romney’s 59-point plan would actually cost the economy about 360,000 jobs in 2013 alone. Several of Romney’s proposals entail no change in policy, so its unclear how they would create jobs. Several others — including tax incentives for outsourcing — would actively undermine U.S. employment. Remember, Romney’s job creation record as governor was hardly stellar, as Massachusetts was 47th in job creation during his tenure. 163,000 jobs created is encouraging, albeit too few to substantially bring down the unemployment rate. But the unemployment rate would be a full percentage point lower were it not for the hundreds of thousands of public sector layoffs that have occurred as a result of budget cutbacks. And Romney would double down on those sort of austerity measures, slicing the budget while cutting taxes for the rich under an economic ideology that has failed to produce results. David Limbaugh: Mitt Romney’s unabashed hatred of Trump blinds him to reality of president’s popularity. Romney seems more comfortable breaking bread with leftist CNN journalists than grassroots Republicans. Sen. Romney on Trump legal action: It’s important for democracy that we don’t allege fraud. Utah Sen. Mitt Romney joins Chris Wallace on ‘Fox News Sunday.’ Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, is grieving over, as CNN reporter Dana Bash put it, President Trump's "very firm grip on the Republican Party." Bash recently asked Romney whether he fears the party won't "be able to overcome Trumpism in the near future." Romney didn't object to Bash's negative characterization of Trumpism. He merely responded that he believes "Trump will continue to have a substantial influence on the party" and that those other than Trump who are rumored to be GOP presidential candidates in 2024 "are trying to appeal to kind of a populist approach." Romney concluded: "I don't think Trumpism is going away, but I hope that we can have disagreements over policy and a vision of our respective parties without continuing to promote a narrative which puts democracy itself in jeopardy. And when you tell people that voting doesn't work and that democracy can't work because we don't have legitimate elections that is a very dangerous thing to be saying." Romney seems more comfortable breaking bread with leftist CNN journalists than grassroots Republicans. He clearly believes Trump is an ill- mannered rogue, but his remarks also confirm that he objects to the current direction of his party. More from Opinion. Like other Trump critics, Romney calls Trumpism "populist." He doubtlessly laments this trend. A populist is defined as "a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." I admit that I used to associate "populism" with demagogic politicians who cynically appeal to the so-called common man to gain power for their own political gain without really being interested in improving the plight of ordinary people. But I don't believe that pejorative connotation applies to Trump or his agenda. The dictionary definition, however, does describe Trump — and his establishment nemeses. From the time he announced his candidacy in 2016, Trump has connected with ordinary Americans whose interests and wishes have been ignored by an elite Washington establishment, with its byzantine, unaccountable bureaucracy. Trump sold himself as an outsider who would bring a new, unorthodox approach to politics as usual that would focus on getting things done despite the bureaucratic roadblocks installed by our entrenched ruling class. Unlike former President Barack Obama and contrary to the left-wing media's lies, Trump didn't run roughshod over the Constitution to advance his agenda but brought a can-do businessman's approach to the Oval Office and achieved an impressive list of accomplishments in his first term. Trump did things previous politicians disingenuously promised to do, such as moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and took action that previous politicians wouldn't have even considered, such as implementing Operation Warp Speed to produce multiple COVID-19 vaccines with previously unthinkable alacrity. Despite the haters' endless ridicule, Trump also pulled off a Middle East peace deal that is the secret envy of all establishment foreign policy "experts" who said it couldn't be done. None of these accomplishments or countless others are the work of a populist demagogue. But they do redound to the benefit of the common man and all Americans — just as Trump’s pro-growth economic policies benefited all income groups, especially minorities. This was the work of the dictionary-described populist, not the type of populist that soulmates Dana Bash and Mitt Romney have in mind. We can expect no different from the liberal Bash, but Romney's sanctimonious hypocrisy is getting older and older. Like his liberal friends, with whom he is more in step than the grassroots Republicans who nominated him in 2012, Romney believes that Trump's election contests threaten democracy. Nonsense. Trump has challenged the election through his bully pulpit and in courtrooms across the land because, along with millions of other Americans, he believes the election was stolen. Unsuccessful court challenges don't prove cheating didn't occur, nor do repeated claims that there "is no evidence." If the election was, in fact, stolen, I dare say that would, by definition, represent a far greater threat to democracy. Why doesn't Romney demand federal election reform to prohibit the relaxation of voting procedures? Why doesn't he crusade against social media oligarchs who censor conservative speech in a way that truly threatens democracy? Why doesn't he condemn liberal media bias against Trump and their lack of scrutiny of the failing Joe Biden? Why doesn't Romney call for an investigation into Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg for his having poured an obscene amount of money into this election? Why can't he grasp that the public's genuine distrust of the election's legitimacy imperils the democratic process infinitely more than Trump's rhetoric or legal challenges? We get nothing but crickets from Romney. Romney's unabashed hatred for Trump perhaps blinds him to the reality that Trump is a wildly popular president, notwithstanding that he is the object of hatred among those whose anti-American agenda he has thwarted. Lament all you want, Sen. Romney, because you are correct that Trumpism is here to stay, as his supporters appreciate and endorse his unapologetic pride in this country; his resistance to the left's destructive agenda, which itself is undemocratic in every sense; and Trump's agenda to literally make America great again. Mitt Romney on Government Reform. Former Republican Governor (MA); presidential nominee-apparent. If we're going to have unity, we need accountability. Regulation is essential; but it's excessive and outdated. ROMNEY: Regulation is essential. You can't have a free market work if you don't have regulation. As a businessperson, I need to know the regulations. You couldn't have people opening up banks in their garage and making loans. Every free economy has good regulation. At the same time, regulation can become excessive. Q: Is it excessive now, do you think? ROMNEY: In some places, yes. Other places, no. ROMNEY: It can become out of date. And what's happened with some of the legislation that's been passed during the president's term, you've seen regulation become excessive, and it's hurt the economy. Let me give you an example. Dodd-Frank includes within it a number of provisions that I think has some unintended consequences that are harmful to the economy. One is it designates a number of banks as too big to fail, and they're effectively guaranteed by the federal government. Source: First Obama-Romney 2012 Presidential debate , Oct 3, 2012. Regulatory cap: Repeal outdated regulations to make new ones. OBAMA: I directed the Office of Science and Technology Policy to ensure that our policies reflect what science tells us without distortion or manipulation. We appointed scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology. Only by ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda, making scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology, and including the public in our decision making process will we harness the power of science to achieve our goals.

Load more

  10

Copy Link